1

TMAC Technical Mapping Advisory Council Meeting July 25-26, 2017

TMAC Members Christopher Bender Nancy Blyler Richard Butgereit Mark DeMulder John Dorman Leslie Durham Carrie Grassi Suzanne Jiwani Howard Kunreuther

Wendy Lathrop Tony LaVoi Robert Mason* Salomon Miranda Tim Murphy Ngoc Nguyen Luis Rodriguez Cheryl Small Jeff Sparrow

Subject Matter Experts

Doug Bellomo Jesse Hayden Rachel Hogan Carr Maria Honeycutt

Theresa Johnston Doug Marcy Shilpa Mulik Joshua Stuckey

Government Attendees Mark Crowell, FEMA, TMAC DFO John Ebersole, FEMA

Michael Nakagaki, FEMA, TMAC ADFO

Registered Public Attendees Pernille Buch-Pederson, Michael Baker Jeanne Christie, ASFPM David Conrad, ASFPM Susan Gilson, NAFSMA

TJ Johnston, Torrent Technologies Jerry Sparks, Dewberry John Sun, Stream Methods Michael Tischler, USGS*

Support Staff Heidi Carlin, AECOM Kirsten Folkedal, Booz Allen Hamilton Laura Karnas, Booz Allen Hamilton Gabrielle Levinson, Booz Allen Hamilton

Jen Marcy, Atkins Global Marshall Popkin, Booz Allen Hamilton Adam Warfield, Booz Allen Hamilton

*Attended Day 1 Only

Purpose The purpose of the Technical Mapping Advisory Council (TMAC) meeting was to allow members to (1) review, deliberate, and vote on recommendations and implementation actions pertaining to the TMAC 2017 Annual Report; and (2) discuss and refine the narrative for the TMAC 2017 Annual Report.

2

Day 1: July 25, 2017

Welcome/ Call to Order/ Roll Call Mr. Mark Crowell, the TMAC Designated Federal Officer (DFO), welcomed members and participants to the meeting. Mr. Crowell provided an overview of the meeting facility and proceeded with a roll call of TMAC members. He reminded everyone of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) compliance provisions. Mr. Crowell made a motion to convene the meeting, which was seconded, and the meeting was officially convened. He then turned the meeting over to Mr. John Dorman, TMAC Chair. Previous Tasks/Process Schedule/Meeting Objectives Mr. Dorman thanked everyone for coming to the meeting and announced that the objective of the meeting was to review, discuss, deliberate, and vote on the proposed recommendations and implementation actions for inclusion in the TMAC 2017 Annual Report. He reviewed the membership of each subcommittee and the agenda. Since the last public meeting, the TMAC has:

• Conducted meetings with FEMA and with subcommittees to clarify change and approach to providing TMAC Recommendations in 2017;

• Conducted subcommittee meetings and developed proposed recommendations and implementation actions for the Council to deliberate and vote upon for inclusion in the TMAC 2017 Annual Report; and

• Worked to produce draft narrative to support the proposed recommendations and implementation actions.

Mr. Dorman asked Mr. Luis Rodriguez, TMAC Member, to provide a legislative update on the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) reauthorization. Mr. Rodriguez gave a brief overview of the evolving direction of the NFIP and the national mapping program since their inception, then focused on developments over the past few months. In December 2016, the United States Congress started engaging in discussions about the mapping program as they considered reauthorization. He mentioned that the House has introduced seven bills specific to the NFIP’s mapping program. Congress is considering several ways to speed up the mapping process, including:

• Waiving the requirement for publications of notices via the Federal Register; and,

• Creating an avenue for communities to do their own mapping – in which case it may be appropriate for the TMAC to give input to help develop the process and standards to which communities must adhere.

Mr. Rodriguez also indicated that the Senate has introduced one bill that emphasizes data efficiency. Mr. Jeff Sparrow, TMAC Member, said that he has heard about the need for more public involvement in the mapping process, which may be contradictory to speeding up the mapping process. Mr. Rodriguez said that this is a significant challenge and that risk communication is being emphasized in the House and Senate bills. TMAC 2017 Annual Report Review – Future Conditions Mr. Tony LaVoi, TMAC Member and Future Conditions Subcommittee Chair, thanked his subcommittee for their recent efforts and reviewed the subcommittee’s updated approach and progress since the last meeting. He reminded participants of FEMA’s tasking and also informed the TMAC of the subcommittee’s new recommendation proposal to conduct a stakeholder needs assessment:

3

Proposed Future Conditions Recommendation – Conduct a Stakeholder Needs Assessment FEMA should undertake a community stakeholder needs assessment to identify end users’ highest priority needs for future conditions products and services.

Implementation Action – Stakeholder and Partner Involvement FEMA should continuously engage a broad array of Federal, state, tribal, and community-level stakeholders and partners in the design, planning, execution, and interpretation of the Needs Assessment Implementation Action - Coastal Emphasis with Riverine Elements as Data Permits Given the state of the science, FEMA should emphasize coastal future conditions data and product needs when conducting the Needs Assessment, but also include elements of riverine future conditions that are scientifically ripe, such as land use and erosion/channel migration. Implementation Action - Capture Critical Product Variables FEMA should ensure that the Needs Assessment collects information on users’ intended applications and addresses key analytical variables, such as relevant timeframe(s), spatial resolution, level of study, future conditions scenarios (e.g., land use, erosion, sea-level rise), product type, uncertainty, and visualization preferences.

Mr. Rodriguez mentioned that New York City is developing requirements for a future conditions product and specifically bringing stakeholders together to discuss needs. He agreed this type of dialogue can help FEMA better understand what constituents need for a future conditions product. Ms. Susanne Jiwani, TMAC Member, suggested that the TMAC expand the definition of the term “community” as it is used in the recommendation. Dr. Howard Kunreuther, TMAC member, stated that different stakeholders have different needs. Dr. Maria Honeycutt, Subject Matter Expert (SME) pointed out that the implementation action regarding stakeholder and partner involvement speaks to Ms. Jiwani’s point by listing more detail of potential stakeholders to be included. She added that the implementation action mentions several types of stakeholders and that the TMAC could help FEMA identify specific stakeholder user groups. Ms. Wendy Lathrop, TMAC Member, suggested that the recommendation be written to address both the public and private sectors. Dr. Honeycutt expressed that in this recommendation, the subcommittee tried to provide information for FEMA to consider, without being too prescriptive. Mr. LaVoi discussed the implementation actions to give a clear idea of what the recommendation represents. Ms. Jiwani highlighted her concern with the implementation action for stakeholder and partner involvement. She noted that it currently only references Government stakeholders and not private stakeholders. She suggested the implementation action should include developers and real estate agencies. She also shared her concern about using of the word “continuously.” She suggested that the word “continuously” would have to be more specifically defined and that perhaps the emphasis was intended to be on performing one assessment, first. Mr. Sparrow recommended making two implementation actions to separately address public additionally and private stakeholders. Mr. Dorman asked the TMAC to review the implementation action regarding a coastal emphasis with riverine elements as data permits. Mr. Tim Murphy, TMAC Member, questioned the meaning of “scientifically ripe” and how it relates to land use. Mr. Doug Bellomo, SME, suggested that future conditions hydrology is not actionable enough to put into future conditions planning. Mr. Dorman referenced the TMAC 2015 Annual Report which stated that the methodology and data did not currently

4

exist for coastal future conditions. He suggested that the implementation action add “based on what the needs of the stakeholders are” to encompass coastal and other future conditions. Ms. Leslie Durham, TMAC Member, informed participants that the TMAC 2015 Annual Report already prioritized coastal over riverine future conditions; therefore, she recommended removing this implementation action regarding this topic as duplicative or, if including it, directly reference the TMAC 2015 Annual Report instead of presenting it as a new implementation action to be addressed. Mr. Rodriguez agreed with Ms. Durham that there may not be something new that is brought by the coastal emphasis with riverine elements as data permits implementation action. Participants agreed to incorporate the discussion into the recommendation and remove the implementation action. Mr. Dorman asked the TMAC to review the third implementation action regarding the capture of critical product variables within the stakeholder needs assessment. He questioned how it differs from the first implementation action about a stakeholder needs assessment. Dr. Honeycutt clarified that the first implementation action was about “how and who” communities should engage; the third implementation action was about “what” they should examine. Mr. Dorman asked the TMAC to consider the newly proposed implementation action about the evolution of future conditions. Ms. Durham questioned whether this should be an implementation action or a recommendation. Dr. Honeycutt explained the reason for proposing it as an implementation action, noting that science will evolve and user sophistication and demands may change such that a community’s flood study may be different in the future. Mr. Rodriguez observed that this implementation action speaks to operationalizing the effort. Mr. Ngoc Nguyen, TMAC Member, suggested that the new implementation action include guidance for communities. Dr. Honeycutt reminded participants that the TMAC 2016 Annual Report already focused on providing guidance, and recommended not including duplicative guidance information in the recommendation or implementation action instruction. She added that there are aspects of community planning that are not considered floodplain management; and the more information is included, the greater the possibility there is to leave something out. She recommended incorporating this language into the narrative instead. Dr. Honeycutt clarified that this recommendation articulates a singular needs assessment to implement future conditions assessment mapping. Dr. Christopher Bender, TMAC Member, stated that the needs-gathering implementation action changes the original intent by recommending additional follow-up discussion to engage the stakeholders. Mr. Dorman suggested revising the original recommendation to include multiple assessments, and expanding the narrative to speak to one larger needs assessment followed up by smaller assessments as needed. Mr. Sparrow made the motion to adopt the future conditions recommendations and implementation actions, as revised, which Dr. Kunreuther seconded. Mr. Crowell announced that members of the public were invited to provide comments on the issues considered by the TMAC. There were no comments from the public. Following the public comment period, Mr. Dorman called for a vote on the recommendations and implementation actions, which the Council unanimously approved. The final future conditions topic recommendation and implementation actions voted upon and passed by the Council are:

TMAC Recommendation 29 FEMA should initiate stakeholder needs assessments to identify end users’ highest priority needs for future conditions products and services that support its current flood-related program and their evolution over time.

Implementation Action 29.1 FEMA should engage a broad array of Federal, state, tribal, and community-level stakeholders, private-sector stakeholders, and partners throughout the design, planning, execution, and interpretation of the Needs Assessment.

5

Implementation Action 29.2 FEMA should ensure that the comprehensive Needs Assessment collects information on users’ intended applications and addresses key analytical variables, such as relevant timeframe(s), spatial resolution, level of study, future conditions scenarios (e.g., land use, erosion, sea-level rise), product type, uncertainty, and visualization preferences. Implementation Action 29.3 FEMA should integrate an ongoing future conditions needs-gathering step as part of the standard flood study process and during other local community engagement touchpoints, using information gained to adapt FEMA’s products to respond to evolving user needs and advancements in science and technology.

TMAC 2017 Annual Report Review – Residual Risk Ms. Jiwani reviewed the three recommendations with implementation actions the subcommittee proposed for the Council’s consideration regarding communicating residual risk to stakeholders.

Proposed Residual Risk Recommendation - Communicating Residual Risk FEMA should develop a means of communicating with both the technical community and the general public what residual risks are and why they are important, especially that associated with levees and dams.

Implementation Action - Residual Risk Communications FEMA should develop a section of its website that describes what residual risks are; the distinctive residual risk components behind levees and downstream of dams; the residual risks existing beyond mapped Special Flood Hazard Areas and above the Base Flood Elevation or Design Flood Elevation; and provides links to existing data sources that map residual risk behind levees, downstream of dams, and above the Base or Design Flood Elevation. This site should also include emergency preparation and actions to take during flooding events, as well as any additional steps property owners and residents may be able to take to further reduce losses from future flooding events. Implementation Action - Prototype Exposure Index FEMA should develop several mapping prototype products where flood depth and probability are combined to form a three to five tier exposure index aimed at more effectively communicating residual flood risk. Implementation Action - CTP Pilots FEMA should work with CTPs to develop pilot projects that develop techniques for communicating the residual risk downstream of dams and in areas protected by levees.

Proposed Residual Risk Recommendation - Communicating Event-Driven Coastal Erosion FEMA should develop a means of communicating the risks of event-driven coastal erosion to the general non-technical public, and a better means of informing technical users about use of hazard data impacted by event-driven coastal erosion.

Implementation Action - Coastal Products FEMA should refine existing non-regulatory products and develop new non-regulatory products to clarify coastal flood risks in the vicinity of erodible features, and highlight the

6

spatial areas affected by event-driven coastal erosion and primary frontal dune delineation. Possible products include:

1. Delineation of model results in the vicinity of the eroded Primary Frontal Dune. 2. Representation of the regulatory flood zones in the absence of an erodible dune feature.

Implementation Action - Event-Driven Erosion Communication FEMA should develop several mapping prototype products where flood depth and probability are combined to form a three to five tier exposure index aimed at more effectively communicating residual flood risk. Implementation Action - Updated Methodology FEMA should update its methodology for determining risk from event-driven coastal erosion.

Residual Risk Recommendation - End-User Testing FEMA should test any prototypes, communications, messages, or other items developed in response to TMAC recommendations through end user and stakeholder testing, adapt as appropriate, and develop standards for routine production and presentation, if applicable.

Mr. Dorman suggested that the first implementation action regarding residual risk communications be shortened into a statement within the narrative. He explained that FEMA does not map what happens if a levee is breached, and questioned if there is a need for FEMA to start modeling that. Ms. Jiwani informed participants that Wisconsin has maps that model what happens if a dam fails or the levee is breached. Mr. Nguyen explained that dam owners are required to map for emergency response purposes; however, this information may not be available to the general public due to security concerns. Dr. Kunreuther emphasized the importance of the recommendation regarding the communication of residual risk. He said that there are additional end users, such as real estate agencies and lenders, that may need to be considered. Ms. Cheryl Small, TMAC Member, added that it is also important to consider insurance companies. Ms. Jiwani said that communities are responsible for mapping and/or modeling dam failure. In Minnesota, they look at the Emergency Action Plan (EAP) that was developed for other purposes. Mr. Richard Butgereit, TMAC Member, stated that the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) does a lot of modeling, but risk communication is difficult. Ms. Jiwani commented that the larger focus on preventing loss of life rather than on just preventing damage to critical infrastructure is vital to the success of risk communication. Mr. Murphy informed the TMAC that there are several United States Geological Survey (USGS) papers on dam failures and damage analysis. Discussing the first implementation action regarding residual risk communications, Ms. Jiwani stated that a website could be created to convey residual risks for levees and dams, and provide links to local emergency plans. Ms. Theresa Johnston, SME, noted that many people do not recognize the risk associated with dams and levees, so they choose not to have flood insurance. The Oroville dam incident is a good example; most people said they did not realize that they had a risk. The TMAC and FEMA need to figure out how to communicate risk to property owners early in the process of purchasing a home. Ms. Jiwani suggested that property owners are frustrated because levee and dam information is not centralized; a website could provide a repository for this information. Dr. Kunreuther suggested that putting information regarding residual risk for dams and levees on a website does not mean that people are receiving that information. He questioned how the TMAC and FEMA can effectively communicate this information to the property owners. Mr. Butgereit asked if a structured specific risk score could solve this. Mr. Rodriguez explained that it is challenging to quantify residual risk so that it becomes part of an ongoing mapping process and is communicated effectively to the public. He said that the second implementation action about a prototype exposure index could address this and noted that the first step is the engagement process and risk communications. Ms. Jiwani explained that the subcommittee thought similarly; however, she expressed concern that the available information is not up to the same standards

7

as the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) and that is why the subcommittee developed the prototype exposure index. Ms. Rachel Hogan Carr, SME, mentioned that social science suggests there should be a reason why these risks are shared with the public. Mr. Rodriguez noted that Congress tasked TMAC to provide guidance on communicating risk to property owners through the mapping program. Ms. Durham suggested making the prototype exposure index implementation action into a recommendation and the TMAC agreed. Mr. Rodriguez added that pilot projects could be an implementation action under this recommendation. The TMAC agreed to make the following text a recommendation: “FEMA should develop a series of mapping prototype products aimed at more effectively communicating residual flood risk related to levees, dams, and event-driven coastal erosion. Products developed should incorporate end user and stakeholder testing, and FEMA should develop standards for routine production and presentation, if applicable.” Discussing the implementation action regarding Cooperating Technical Partners (CTP) pilots, Ms. Jiwani spoke about developing techniques for communicating residual risk downstream of dams and behind areas protected by levees. Mr. LaVoi asked if there was a substantive difference between the residual risk communications implementation action and CTP pilots implementation action. Ms. Jiwani suggested that they could be combined, but noted that the first one is more website-specific. Mr. Rodriguez explained that FEMA tasked the TMAC to advise how to advance communications and public awareness of residual risk. Mr. Robert Mason, TMAC Member, asked if the Residual Risk Subcommittee had investigated other communities where residual risk communications had been implemented. Ms. Jiwani said that the subcommittee would follow up on that request. Ms. Durham asked if the TMAC is willing to say that the risk rating on structures should reflect the level of residual risk. Ms. Jiwani said that the purpose of discussing residual risk was to show risk behind both accredited and non-accredited levees, adding that this might relate to insurance. Mr. Rodriguez underscored Ms. Durham’s comment regarding the need for an accounting of residual risk in an insurance setting and noted the importance of increasing awareness of risk, noting accreditation does not guarantee safety. Dr. Kunreuther suggested that part of the solution could be increasing awareness of residual risk at the community level, rather than at the individual level. Mr. Sparrow noted that at the individual level, the level of risk is reflected through the insurance premium, whereas at a community level there is more than one structure impacted and so the risk communication may come in the form of an emergency action plan. Mr. Dorman inquired about including another implementation action for communicating the residual risk recommendation that suggests FEMA leverage a mapping process that can communicate and model residual risk. The TMAC discussed communicating residual risk to communities, modeling residual risk around specific scenarios, and creating a communications method for the local level. Dr. Bender suggested a multi-step process for communicating residual risk to communities. The first step would entail communicating how to understand the issue of residual risk; the second step would involve FEMA looking at what information is available, examining examples that are in place, and developing a quantitative measure and process for insurance purposes. Mr. Jesse Hayden, SME, discussed the proposed recommendation regarding communicating event-driven coastal erosion, along with the accompanying implementation actions. Mr. LaVoi noted that recommendation 9 in the TMAC 2015 Annual Report is similar to this recommendation and inquired why this topic keeps arising. Mr. Hayden reminded the Council that FEMA asked the TMAC to review Recommendation 9 and incorporate it as an implementation action. He suggested that hazards mapping can be accomplished now. Dr. Bender stated that erosion is a hard concept for local officials and the public to understand. He explained that it is difficult to speak about modeling and communication on erosion as the science is not quite there. Mr. Sparrow referenced Hurricane Matthew and asked how one can communicate to stakeholders that just because a dune exists today, does not mean that it will be there tomorrow. The TMAC discussed event-driven erosion. Mr. Crowell noted that the difference between event-driven and long-term erosion is defined in the TMAC 2015 Future Conditions Risk Assessment and Modeling Report.

8

The TMAC discussed the implementation action regarding updated methodology. Mr. Hayden noted that Mr. Chris Jones, SME, will be adding additional details to this implementation action, including addressing the 540 rule. Mr. Rodriguez mentioned that FEMA intends to replace the 540 rule. Dr. Honeycutt noted that FEMA is the only organization using this approach today. She suggested bringing together different sectors (not FEMA-specific) to discuss and share the science. Dr. Bender agreed and referenced the approach taken by the Great Lakes, noting that different locations may require different modeling. Mr. Rodriguez noted that coastal erosion is a challenge and encouraged the subcommittee to find an approach to include in this implementation action. Mr. Hayden recommended tightening the scope to “convene a group of experts” to differentiate it from the TMAC 2015 Annual Report Recommendation 9. Mr. Dorman suggested writing this into the narrative and the Council agreed. Mr. Rodriguez noted that the revised recommendation about the prototype exposure index and the recommendation regarding communicating event-driven coastal erosion were too similar. He suggested incorporating the latter into the former as part of the narrative. Participants also agreed to change references of “pilots” to “pilot projects” since these can be more than an isolated study. The TMAC agreed to the following actions regarding this section:

• Remove the recommendation regarding communicating residual risk;

• Remove the first implementation action regarding residual risk communications;

• Add two implementation actions to the prototype exposure index recommendation: 1. FEMA should conduct pilots with communities and other stakeholders to evaluate how

effective the prototypes are at communicating residual risk. 2. Once prototypes are developed and evaluated, FEMA should leverage the existing flood

study process and other community engagement touchpoints to communicate residual risk.

• Remove the implementation action regarding CTP Pilots.

Ms. Durham made the motion to adopt the residual risk recommendations and implementation actions, as revised, which Ms. Lathrop seconded. Mr. Crowell announced that members of the public were invited to provide comments on the issues considered by the TMAC. There were no comments from the public. Following the public comment period, Mr. Dorman called for a vote on the recommendations and implementation actions, which the Council unanimously approved. The final residual risk topic recommendation and implementation actions voted upon and passed by the Council are: TMAC Recommendation 28 FEMA should develop a series of mapping prototype products aimed at more effectively communicating residual flood risk related to levees, dams, and event-driven coastal erosion. Products developed should incorporate end user and stakeholder testing, and FEMA should develop standards for routine production and presentation, if applicable.

Implementation Action 28.1 FEMA should conduct pilot projects with communities and other stakeholders to evaluate how effective the prototypes are at communicating residual risk. Implementation Action 28.2 Once prototypes are developed and evaluated, FEMA should leverage the existing flood study process and other community engagement touchpoints to communicate residual risk. Implementation Action 28.3 FEMA should refine existing non-regulatory products and develop new non-regulatory products to clarify coastal flood risks in the vicinity of erodible features, and highlight the spatial areas affected by event-driven coastal erosion and primary frontal dune delineation. Possible products include:

1. Delineation of model results in the vicinity of the eroded Primary Frontal Dune 2. Representation of the regulatory flood zones in the absence of an erodible dune

feature

9

Public Comment The TMAC DFO Mark Crowell announced that, per FACA, members of the public are provided the opportunity to provide oral and written comments on the issues to be considered by the TMAC. Mr. Crowell requested that speakers limit their public comments to no more than three minutes and said that the public comment period will not exceed 30 minutes. Mr. David Conrad, , offered the following comment:

“Thank you, Mark, and thank you TMAC. My name is David Conrad and I’m speaking as a private citizen. Although I’ve been much engaged with ASFPM, I don’t want to put them on the record. This is responding to the TMAC’s discussion on residual risk recommendations. I was heartened especially at the direction of the discussion as it evolved. I believe that while there would be some value in giving the public general information about the existence of residual risk, I believe the aspiration should be to take this to a higher specificity for local communities for a variety of reasons: Value of such information is wide ranging – for community emergency warning systems the personal actions residents can take (such as location of utilities and valuables in their homes); to guide investments and land use decisions; assist community planners; and to let people that are outside Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) know of these risks to decide on purchase of insurance, including the very affordable preferred risk properties; and to engender necessary public support for proper maintenance of the dams and levees. It is likely that by providing such information, there would be a considerably higher portion of insurance purchased outside the highest risk areas, which has been a confounding and well recognized problem for the NFIP. I don’t believe it would be necessary to have the same level of precision for residual risk area estimation as with rate map studies. And the council’s discussion seemed to reflect that. It seems to me that FEMA might very much benefit from TMAC guidance on next steps and what levels of estimated flood risk might be adequate to help communities consider residual risks for their various needs. One recommendation I would make is for the TMAC to engage with the USACE, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), and USGS on the methods they use for estimating residual risk and inundation areas from dam and levee failures, summarize that information, and then engage with FEMA as to what from these methods would be helpful to FEMA in addressing these needs.”

Mr. Crowell said that members of the public were invited to provide written comments on the issues to be considered by the TMAC. One comment was provided from Mr. Carter Johnson of New Orleans, Louisiana, displayed as received below:

“Regarding FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program Refusal to Recognize Owner Occupied Multi-Family Properties as Primary Residences and Objection To The $250 ‘Blanket Flat Fee’ HFIAA Surcharge as a Direct Result of Flood Zone Re-Mapping. I was glad to hear that numerous Louisiana residents potentially saved a considerable amount of money due to the re-mapping and re-zoning of the FEMA flood maps, however I along with countless other multi-family property owners were not so lucky specifically due to the HFIAA Surcharge. This $250 HFIAA Surcharge is being applied to all multi-family property owners – there is no sliding scale for size of the property (my double shotgun is only approximately 1,400 sq ft), no sliding scale for which zone I reside in or proximity to the ‘river’ levee, no sliding scale

10

for actually carrying flood insurance for the entire 15 years I have lived here with no flood claims on record... This $250 HFIAA Surcharge EVEN applies to multi-family property owners that reside in their multi-family dwellings, yet FOR SOME REASON FEMA and the National Flood Insurance Program says that even though we reside in our homes (have homestead exemption, pay property tax, pay utilities…) that it CAN NOT be recognized as a Primary Residence, which would then drop the corresponding Primary Residence Surcharge to $25--- as opposed to $250! It clearly states in FEMA's own Rules and Regulations surrounding the new re-zoning and re-mapping that a Primary Residence must be declared a Primary Residence… And in the NFIP's own verification of Primary Residence form, there is no mention whatsoever excluding owner-occupied multi-family properties. Regarding the actual bill I received in the mail – it just lists my coverage and below that it just says, ‘HFIAA Surcharge $250’ and then mentions a few other related fees, but nowhere on the bill is an actual description of why I received that surcharge or what it is for. When I receive my power bill or water bill, there is a clear description of how my bill was calculated. There is even a Declaration Page with my Homeowner Insurance. Full disclosure and a clear and concise itemized breakdown of the FEMA flood insurance bill should be requirement if it is not already the law. Then at that point, I believe more people would voice their opposition to the flat fee HFIAA surcharge for multi-family properties as well as FEMA refusing to recognize owner occupied multi-family properties as Primary Residences and using money collected from these surcharges to help fund the new ‘lower rates.’ Saying that my home is not really my home and not properly disclosing the breakdown of fees is just not right. It seems that I am actually being penalized for carrying flood insurance and owning rental property.”

No additional comments were received. TMAC 2017 Annual Report Review - Floodplain Management Mr. Sparrow provided an overview of the floodplain management topic, discussed FEMA’s request to the TMAC, and the four recommendations with implementation actions the subcommittee proposed for Council consideration to respond to that tasking:

Proposed Floodplain Management Recommendation - Multiple Products As FEMA moves to providing structure-specific risk assessments for insurance rating and other purposes, it should not focus on developing one product to serve various stakeholders. These stakeholders include but are not limited to floodplain managers, mitigation planners, insurance agents, real estate agents, lenders, and emergency managers. FEMA should provide the data it develops in an online digital GIS database that allows the unique stakeholder to develop the product the stakeholder needs for their use. Proposed Floodplain Management Recommendation - Risk Score As FEMA moves to structure-specific risk rating a risk score for every structure should be developed. Each structure should be assigned a current conditions risk score and a future conditions risk score. Proposed Floodplain Management Recommendation - Perform Pilots TMAC recommends that FEMA perform pilots in specific communities to determine the best data to accurately calculate risk scores for existing and new construction.

Proposed Floodplain Management Recommendation - Continued Use of the 1-percent

(1%) Annual Flood Chance Line

TMAC recommends the continued use of the 1-percent annual chance flood line as shown in the

11

Flood Insurance Rate Map for mandatory insurance purchase requirements and the use of the

structure’s risk score for insurance rating and premium determination

Mr. Rodriguez suggested that the recommendation regarding multiple products and the recommendation about continued use of the 1- percent annual chance flood line seem to imply that FEMA should continue with the current FIRM product. Ms. Small said that to meet long-term mandatory purchase requirements, the delineation of “in or out” would be needed. She added that the structure-specific and 1-percent annual chance flood line approach would not be an either/or issue. Lenders may be happy to assign risk scores to properties that may not be covered. Mr. Sparrow noted that these recommendations speak to implications on floodplain management “if and when” FEMA moves away from the 1-percent annual chance flood line. Ms. Small discussed the effect this will have on the insurance industry and lenders and suggested that they include language about the importance of the transition. Mr. Rodriguez suggested that the first recommendation regarding multiple products is similar to Recommendation 16 in the TMAC 2015 Annual Report. Mr. Sparrow noted that the subcommittee was concerned that FEMA was going down a one-way path with a structure-specific approach. While the recommendation reiterates FEMA’s approach, they should not lose sight of information that is already available with FIRMs. Mr. Rodriguez said that FEMA is taking the TMAC’s recommendation to move away from the 1-percent annual chance flood line, and incorporating a structure-specific approach. He questioned how the other parts of the NFIP would use this tool and manage impacts. Dr. Kunreuther noted that the subcommittee thought a risk score would be an important contribution to help stakeholders to assess flood risk as FEMA moves away from the 1-percent annual chance flood line. Mr. Dorman inquired about the importance of the 1-percent annual chance flood line now that FEMA is moving away from it. Mr. Joshua Stuckey, SME, noted that this was a great discussion point for the subcommittee around “if not this, then what.” Mr. Chad Berginnis, SME, commented that there seemed to be a disconnect between Mr. Rodriguez’s and Mr. Dorman’s comments. Mr. Rodriguez was asking if FEMA would move away from the 1-percent annual chance flood line what impacts would be. Mr. Murphy addressed Mr. Dorman’s question about the importance of the 1-percent annual chance flood line, stating that it is the floodplain management tool; the 1-percent annual chance flood line is used to determine floodplain regulations. He expressed uncertainty about how to implement a risk score. Ms. Durham clarified that TMAC was asked to address the implications of moving away from the 1-percent annual chance flood line, not necessarily the timeline for doing so. Ms. Jiwani asked for clarification regarding what is meant by “every structure.” Mr. Murphy clarified that only structures where there is data would receive a risk score; giving a score to every building may not be possible. He mentioned developing a concept plan for areas without this data. Mr. Stuckey noted the importance of the timing of future conditions considerations. Dr. Kunreuther agreed and suggested that this information would be of interest to real estate and banking companies for new construction. Mr. Dorman suggested using an elevation approach, where the 1-percent annual chance flood line would become obsolete. Mr. Salomon Miranda, TMAC Member, noted that with regards to elevation certificates, different locations already have specific elevation regulations. Mr. Stuckey added that elevations vary on different properties; it would be difficult to regulate without a baseline such as the 1- percent annual chance flood line. Ms. Small had comments regarding communities that do not have available data for structure-specific assessments. She asked what would happen to those communities and how lending institutions would address this. Mr. Dorman stated that Recommendation 14 in the TMAC 2015 Annual Report addresses structure-specific assessments “where data is not available” as well as pilot projects. Ms. Small explained that the 1-percent annual chance flood line serves as a baseline regardless of elevation; the regulation is

12

written today for those lenders. Dr. Kunreuther suggested that pilot studies would be helpful in this respect. Ms. Durham suggested removing the recommendation since TMAC was not tasked to address mandatory purchase and rating. Mr. Butgereit agreed, but suggested including the narrative in previous recommendations since it better supports the tasking from FEMA. The Council agreed to remove this recommendation, but keep the narrative. Ms. Durham also said that the FEMA tasking included tools and suggested adding elevation as a tool. Mr. Berginnis noted that mapping and 1-percent annual chance flood line may be needed as part of the new tools. With regards to the recommendation regarding performing pilots, the TMAC agreed to change this recommendation into an implementation action and move it to under the risk score recommendation. Mr. Dorman asked the Council to deliberate on the recommended revisions to this section. Mr. Crowell announced that, per FACA, members of the public are provided the opportunity to provide oral and written comments on the issues to be considered by the TMAC. Ms. Johnston offered the following comment:

“One thing I heard as I was listening to the dialogue was that this is limited only to floodplain management and mitigation. But I would caution you that when we got BW-12 we landed with a phrase that’s become common: ‘unintended consequences.’ I question whether regulation was passed without a full understanding of what is happening. I think FEMA should work with all stakeholders to understand use of the current maps and to develop a managed transition plan to the structure based risk score. They will use this for rating, and insurance, and for lenders. It’s not an isolated piece. In listening to what you have to say in developing a flood risk score, we want things from an insurance standpoint. But there was no reference to basements, crawl space, and other areas. I would caution you to not eliminate those types of structures as you eliminate this process. Thank you.”

No additional comments were received. Ms. Durham suggested adding the following implementation action to the new risk score recommendation: “FEMA should consult with experts in the mandatory flood insurance purchase industry regarding transitioning from the 1-percent line to structure-based risk information utilizing risk scores for this purpose.” Mr. Rodriguez expressed concern that TMAC may not be answering FEMA’s ask around floodplain management and implementation. Mr. Sparrow suggested that the pilot projects would help identify a risk score and confirm the process before implementing it nationwide. TMAC members offered several comments regarding the implementation actions. Ms. Jiwani expressed concern with the first implementation action about using pilot projects to determine risk scores, noting that risk scores alone may not be sufficient and the implementation action may be too specific. Mr. Crowell said the second implementation action about consulting insurance industry strays too far from the ask from FEMA. Additionally, Mr. Butgereit expressed concern about not addressing the floodway, which was clearly written in the ask from FEMA. He suggested creating a new recommendation about the floodway. Mr. Dorman asked the Council to review the day’s Recommendations and Implementation Actions so that they can continue deliberation the following day. Adjournment Mr. Crowell thanked meeting participants and announced that the meeting would resume the following day at 8:00 a.m. The meeting was adjourned.

13

Day 2: July 26, 2017

Call to Order / Roll Call Mr. Michael Nakagaki, TMAC Alternate DFO (ADFO), opened the meeting’s second day and took roll call. Mr. Nakagaki reminded participants of FACA compliance stipulations and provided a procedural overview of the day’s events. He then turned the meeting over to Mr. Dorman. TMAC 2017 Annual Report Review - Floodplain Management Participants continued to discuss the recommendations and implementation actions for floodplain management. Participants agreed to remove the recommendation regarding multiple products noting that it duplicated one from the TMAC 2015 Annual Report. Additionally, the TMAC agreed to add or modify several implementation actions under the risk score recommendation. Regarding the implementation action about performing pilot projects, Ms. Jiwani expressed a preference for the alternative version, which guides floodplain management personnel in creating policies that consider flood risk scores. Mr. Murphy stated that developing a risk score without understanding how to apply that score would constitute an incomplete effort. Dr. Kunreuther emphasized two components of the risk score discussion, including: (1) developing the risk score; and (2) using the risk score to create policy. Mr. Dorman asked the TMAC to consider other elements of floodplain management. Mr. Sparrow suggested asking floodplain managers for input on what information would be helpful for floodplain management as policies shift from using the 1-percent annual chance flood line. He recommended the following new implementation action: “FEMA should coordinate with floodplain managers for identifying and testing other data to support floodplain management and mitigation as it moves away from the 1-percent annual chance flood line.” Dr. Kunreuther asked the TMAC to consider the order of the implementation actions. Mr. Dorman recommended that risk score be presented first. Ms. Durham recommended the following order: (1) include tools to support floodplain management; (2) mention mitigation planners in addition to floodplain managers; and (3) remove event from the phrase “1-percent annual event line.” Risk score should be discussed first, followed by an analysis of tools for implementation, and then the pilot study. Mr. Dorman recommended the following change for the risk score recommendation: “As FEMA transitions away from the 1-percent annual chance flood line…” Mr. Dorman suggested adding the following new recommendation: “FEMA should construct, in coordination with stakeholders, a transition plan for moving away from the 1-percent annual chance flood line.” Mr. Nguyen recommended replacing the risk score recommendation; the remaining implementation actions would appear under the recommendation for transitioning away from the 1-percent annual chance flood line. Mr. Dorman asked the TMAC to consider the narrative’s discussion of floodways. Mr. Butgereit said that the floodway remains valuable as a tool for Floodplain Management; FEMA should continue to map the floodway. Mr. Sparrow stated that flood protection would become more difficult if the floodway were no longer mapped. Risk score could be used as a metric to protect the floodway as FEMA moves away from the 1-percent annual chance flood line. Mr. Rodriguez expressed that it would be necessary to prototype and test the risk score concept to replace the floodway and suggested that it be incorporated into a pilot project. Mr. Murphy suggested that the recommendation for transitioning away from the 1-percent annual chance flood line include a pilot test of the risk score concept. The TMAC decided to discuss the floodway in a separate implementation action for this recommendation; that implementation action reads: “FEMA should perform pilot projects to determine possible alternatives to the floodway concept.” Mr. Nguyen encouraged the TMAC to consider alternatives to the floodway concept.

14

Ms. Sparrow made the motion to adopt the floodplain management recommendations and implementation actions, as revised, which Ms. Jiwani seconded. Mr. Crowell announced that members of the public were invited to provide comments on the issues considered by the TMAC. There were no comments from the public. Following the public comment period, Mr. Dorman called for a vote on the floodplain management recommendations and implementation actions, which the Council unanimously approved. The final floodplain management topic recommendation and implementation actions voted upon and passed by the Council are: TMAC Recommendation 25

FEMA should develop a series of mapping prototype products aimed at As FEMA transitions away from

the 1-percent-annual-chance line, a risk score for existing and proposed structures should be developed.

Each structure should be assigned a current conditions risk score and a future conditions risk score.

Implementation Action 25.1

FEMA should perform pilot projects utilizing risk scores to determine the best data and methods

to accurately calculate structure-specific risk for floodplain management for existing and new

structures.

TMAC Recommendation 26 FEMA should coordinate with floodplain managers and mitigation planners to identify and test data and tools needed to support floodplain management and mitigation as it moves away from the 1-percent-annual-chance line.

Implementation Action 26.1 FEMA should perform pilot projects to understand the implications and opportunities for floodplain management in regard to moving to risk scores and determine other relevant data. Implementation Action 26.2 FEMA should perform pilot projects to determine possible alternatives or modifications to the floodway concept.

TMAC Recommendation 27 FEMA should develop, in coordination with stakeholders, a transition plan for moving away from the 1-percent-annual-chance flood line. TMAC Discussion – Narrative for Future Conditions Next, participants discussed the report narrative. Mr. Dorman said that the final narrative language will be adopted at the next TMAC meeting. Mr. LaVoi said that the future conditions narrative has four sections, including: (1) Introduction; (2) Review of Recommendations and Implementation Actions From the 2015 and 2016 TMAC Annual Reports; (3) Implementation Status; and (4) New Recommendations, which will be updated to reflect the meeting’s discussions and emphasize that FEMA should conduct a needs assessment. Mr. Doug Marcy, SME, added that the needs assessment is required because the TMAC 2015 Annual Report discussed future conditions within the context of the 1-percent annual chance flood line; FEMA asked the TMAC how to consider future conditions if the 1-percent annual chance flood line is no longer used. Dr. Honeycutt stated that FEMA is concerned about how to implement such a program and that the needs assessment should provide an adaptive capacity for the program. Dr. Honeycutt noted that the narrative requests that FEMA stop proceeding with TMAC 2016 Annual Report implementation actions until completion of a needs assessment. Mr. Rodriguez said that

15

identifying needs should precede developing products and tools as this will ensure that products and tools meet the desired needs. Ms. Durham expressed that more focus should be placed on riverine areas. Dr. Honeycutt replied that the needs assessment would not be exclusive to coastal areas. Mr. Dorman asked the subcommittee to discuss additional needs moving forward. Ms. Lathrop suggested that the TMAC revise the chapter name to something more specific than Future Conditions. Mr. LaVoi advised that the subcommittee would consider this suggestion and that the subcommittee chairs would work together to implement consistent titles. TMAC Discussion – Narrative for Residual Risk Ms. Jiwani summarized the previous day’s decisions regarding residual risk recommendations and implementation actions. She explained that the residual risk chapter has three sections: (1) Overview of Residual Risk; (2) Residual Risks for Levees and Dams; and (3) Residual Risk Associated with Storm Event Driven Coastal Erosion. Ms. Jiwani asked the TMAC to consider content that can be removed from the narrative. Ms. Lathrop expressed the importance of having background content on residual risk types. Mr. Dorman noted that each of the three chapters (i.e., Future Conditions, Residual Risk, Floodplain Management) should state FEMA’s original tasking to the TMAC regarding the specific topic. Mr. Rodriguez noted that the coastal narrative should include more information regarding residual risk. Mr. Hayden indicated that the coastal narrative intentionally did not articulate the term “residual risk” as FEMA’s ask included changing risk and only included residual risk under the dams and levees bullet. Mr. Rodriguez stated that the subcommittee should also review residual risk for coastal issues. Dr. Bender asked if structures outside of the 100-year flood zone are at risk or residual risk. Ms. Jiwani indicated that FEMA has said it is appropriate to build outside the 100-year flood zone. She said that the TMAC could add that description to the narrative to increase awareness of the potential for damage beyond the 1-percent annual chance flood line. Dr. Kunreuther referenced the previous day’s discussion regarding residual risk and asked the TMAC to consider communities that have residual risk with respect to levees and dams. Ms. Nancy Blyler, TMAC Member, informed participants that the USACE has conducted research on this topic, but it is unclear how much data is available. Mr. Bellomo noted that USACE has collaborated with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on the connection between sea level rise and residual risk. Mr. Sparrow stated that the definition of residual risk in the narrative is the traditional definition and suggested that the subcommittee consider adding content related to failure potential for levees and dams. Ms. Jiwani indicated that FEMA should consider the risk of flooding during normal operations. Dr. Kunreuther asked if the USACE has information that identifies communities that have significant challenges with levees and dams. Ms. Blyler informed participants that the USACE works with communities through the Silver Jackets program; however, there is no list of communities with significant challenges. She added that the USACE prioritizes levees for which they are responsible, but does not prioritize levees outside of their program. Mr. Bellomo reiterated that the USACE reviews the levees for which they are responsible, and categorizes them in a safety classification system. The USACE will consider levees that have been damaged by a natural hazard and that need repair. Dr. Kunreuther emphasized that everyone behind a levee is at risk if that levee is overtopped. Mr. Bellomo stated that he would research additional language to add to the narrative. Dr. Bender noted the importance of knowing risk scores for structures behind a levee that are beyond the 1-percent annual chance flood line. Ms. Jiwani suggested that the TMAC could update the narrative to discuss risk scores behind levees. She added that the TMAC could recommend prioritization where risk has been identified.

16

Mr. Bellomo clarified that residual risk has not been quantified and that uncertainty should be considered. He said that the TMAC could consider tying the risk score to an exposure index. This would convey risk to the public for areas where insurance is not required, and could apply to vacant lands. Mr. Sparrow noted the opportunity to connect floodplain management and residual risk through the exposure index. The current prototype has five levels; Mr. Sparrow asked the TMAC to consider whether a rubric with three levels would be clearer. Ms. Carr indicated that three levels may be easier to follow, but that three levels may be insufficient to show the extent of actionable risk levels. Ms. Durham suggested that the TMAC recommend that an exposure index be created for coastal areas. Mr. Bellomo indicated that the exposure index would account for ground elevation and depth and incorporate a storm-induced erosion calculation for coastal areas. The exposure index would not vary between coastal and riverine areas; however, the methodology for calculating the rating would vary between these two distinct environments to account for erosion, waves, and debris in coastal areas. Mr. Rodriguez expressed concern regarding communicating the exposure index. He asked for examples for how an individual property owner or manager would use the exposure index. Additionally, he questioned what action an individual could take based on the index. Ms. Jiwani mentioned that she has seen indices with four to nine levels. Ms. Carr indicated that the subcommittee will explore options for a color coding system and research the number of levels; she will review research that has been done for earthquake risk. Mr. Bellomo emphasized the differences between earthquake and flood risk. Mr. LaVoi noted that the National Hurricane Center has worked with social scientists regarding risk communication and suggested that the TMAC reference related studies. Dr. Kunreuther emphasized the importance of presenting information accessibly to the public noting that people are often reluctant to invest in mitigation measures because of high up-front costs. He suggested that costs could be tied to a property and not to an individual. Mr. Bellomo expressed concerns about inundating the public with information. He added that the public receives different information from NFIP insurance, private insurance, and potentially an exposure index rating, and risk score. Dr. Kunreuther stated that tying information to money will draw the most public attention. Mr. Dorman asked the subcommittee if they need any graphics assistance. Ms. Jiwani indicated that this section will have graphics on prototypes; additional graphics covering residual risk types would be helpful. TMAC Discussion – Narrative for Floodplain Management Mr. Sparrow reviewed the previous day’s discussions regarding floodplain management. He explained that the Introduction section repeats FEMA’s ask to the TMAC and provides an overview of the remainder of the chapter. The Opportunities and Challenges section examines alternatives to the floodway and ways the floodway can be improved; additional tools for floodplain management would be identified through pilot projects. Mr. Sparrow said that this section also addresses online products that FEMA is using in post-disaster environments; methodologies for developing a risk score; and an example for computing risk score. Mr. Dorman requested comments from the TMAC on the narrative for floodplain management. Mr. Stuckey suggested that the Council reorganize the existing text under the new headings. Dr. Bender indicated that TMAC intends to include erosion modeling and two-dimensional waves in the narrative. Mr. Dorman said that the narrative should discuss transitioning away from the 1-percent annual chance flood line model, rather than structure-based risk. Mr. Rodriguez expressed concerns about the prescriptive language in the narrative and asked the subcommittee to review the entire chapter to ensure that all definitive statements are accurately characterized. Dr. Kunreuther agreed and recommended that the language present ideas for consideration, rather than prescriptive statements. Ms. Grassi also recommended that the subcommittee review the use of the term “should”.

17

Mr. Miranda suggested that the last sentence of the implementation action regarding pilot projects using risk scores be updated as follows: “floodplain management for existing and future structures.” He added that this implementation action should include a statement regarding the enforcement of building codes. Ms. Grassi also suggested that the narrative discuss V-Zone and wave impacts. Mr. Rodriguez asked the subcommittee to consider the discussion of the phased approach to determine if the text still applied given revisions to the recommendations and implementation actions. Mr. Dorman asked the subcommittee if they need additional resources. Mr. Sparrow indicated that the subcommittee would work with Booz Allen Hamilton on graphics, and requested Mr. Dorman provide a case study from North Carolina. Mr. Murphy asked how much detail the TMAC should provide for the risk scoring example. Dr. Kunreuther stated that the existing narrative is a starting point for how risk score could be calculated. Mr. Sparrow said that risk score should be connected to the residual risk chapter. Ms. Durham asked if recommendations and implementation actions could be re-ordered. Mr. Dorman replied that they could be reordered but not reworded. Mr. Dorman indicated that the desire to have the narratives revised in time for a vote during the next TMAC meeting. To give TMAC members a chance to review the language, Mr. Dorman asked the TMAC members to complete their respective content by mid-August. Public Comment Mr. Crowell announced that, per FACA, the public has the opportunity to provide oral and written comments on the issues to be considered by the TMAC. Mr. Crowell requested that speakers limit their public comments to no more than three minutes; the public comment period will not exceed 30 minutes. Ms. Jeanne Christie, Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) provided the following comment:

Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to speak. Floodplains are natural resources of value, and mapping the boundaries has been essential to both the floodplain and natural resource management. I am concerned about emphasis on structure-specific risk because it infers that best and highest use of floodplain is building and not the floodplain itself. We all recognize that the floodplain has intrinsic value; features besides buildings have value. In listening to what you are doing, it is something that is going to require additional thought and concern. I am concerned about not recognizing the importance of floodplain mapping; others are moving toward geospacing. We were hoping that as TMAC moved forward, FEMA would become more innovative with how it maps floodplains and recognize the importance of mapping floodplains. There are efficiencies in the 1-percent mapping approach; you need maps for planning, zoning, response during floods, and mapping the floodway in high velocity zones; all of these inform communities for how they plan and manage floods. I would not want them to be left behind. I would be glad if we do not have to do Letters of Map Revision (LOMRs). I worry about mapping urban versus rural and cost of approach. In our experience, what works well in one part of the country has to apply in another part of county. This is the most ecologically diverse country in the world. That diversity means that it requires a lot of regional specificity to make things work. Thank you very much!

Ms. Susan Gilson, National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies (NAFSMA), offered the following comment:

While NAFSMA understands TMAC’s recommended approach to develop a structural risk score for insurance rates, NAFSMA is concerned about the tone of this report that FEMA will move away from

18

mapping the 1 percent-chance line and associated maps. These maps play a critical role in local planning and Floodplain Management actions. We urge TMAC to continue to work on this recommendation to address this concern. NAFSMA is encouraged by language added that FEMA should coordinate with floodplain and mitigation managers to identify and test data and tools needed to support Floodplain Management and mitigation actions.

No additional comments were received. TMAC Subcommittee Session Breakout Floodplain Management and Mitigation Subcommittee Mr. Sparrow led the Floodplain Management and Mitigation Subcommittee breakout. He said that the subcommittee will have to revise the narrative of the section in order to incorporate the revisions to the recommendations and implementation actions. Mr. Sparrow will reorganize the text and provide it to the subcommittee by July 31, 2017. The subcommittee will hold a call on August 3, 2017, to talk about the revised section. The final document will be sent to the full TMAC for review by August 18, 2017. Mr. Stuckey said that the subcommittee needs to add more narrative regarding the two examples in its section. He suggested adding a graphic regarding the calculation of risk zone. Mr. Stuckey, Dr. Kunreuther, and Mr. Murphy will develop a graphic regarding this issue. Additionally, Ms. Durham suggested a graphic regarding changing the risk score. Ms. Shilpa Mulik, FEMA, said that Mr. Rodriguez mentioned that FEMA is redesigning the risk rating. She said that FEMA is considering several factors (e.g., close to coast, size of flooding) and suggested that the TMAC review these factors. She suggested that the subcommittee discuss this issue with Mr. Andy Neal, FEMA. Subcommittee members noted that the TMAC is only providing examples of factors that could be involved in the score. Discussing the idea of developing a transition plan, Mr. Sparrow said that the focus should be on floodplain management and mitigation. It should discuss other aspects and stakeholders that should be considered when creating a transition plan. Mr. Rodriguez said that the National Association of Realtors (NAR) has provided FEMA with feedback on the risk score and suggested the subcommittee talk with a representative on this issue. Mr. Rodriguez will provide the contact information of someone from the National Association of Realtors to discuss their feedback on the risk score with the subcommittee. Additionally, Mr. Dorman suggested that the subcommittee talk to Mr. Austin Briggs, National Association of Realtors, on this issue. Mr. Sparrow will contact the National Association of Realtors to obtain feedback on the risk score. Discussing the order of the recommendations in the narrative, participants thought it would be useful to discuss moving away from the risk score, then the floodplain, followed by the transition plan. Ms. Heidi Carlin, AECOM, will help develop any necessary graphics for the section.

Residual Risk Subcommittee Ms. Jiwani led the Residual Risk Subcommittee breakout session. She reviewed the current structure of the narrative and will distribute an updated version of the section to the subcommittee members by July 28, 2017. Ms. Jiwani requested that subcommittee members provide comments to the narrative by mid-August. Mr. Hayden expressed concern regarding the development of an exposure index for coastal areas. Ms. Jiwani suggested that Mr. Hayden consult with Dr. Honeycutt regarding this topic. Mr. Nguyen expressed the need for USACE to provide information on other countries’ approaches to residual risk.

19

Ms. Blyler said that she will provide this information to the subcommittee. Ms. Jiwani summarized USACE efforts on levee/dam hazard analysis; she asked whether data (including cost data) can be obtained for a small subset of levees/dams. The subcommittee determined that the following topics will be included in the narrative:

• Tools for determining residual risk;

• The exposure index should be discussed within the context of risk score; the exposure index could apply to structures or land areas; and,

• The effects of floodway storage.

Mr. Miranda mentioned that the TMAC should consider three versus five levels for the exposure index. Ms. Carr suggested testing multiple options. Mr. Nakagaki referenced the Community Rating System (CRS), and the possibility of having 500 points rolled up into three to five categories. Mr. Miranda discussed graphics in the report and suggested developing a graphic that can portray the varying risk by distance from the levee. Ms. Jiwani stated that a structure-by-structure analysis might be most appropriate, given that elevated structures adjacent to non-elevated structures experience different risk levels. Mr. Nakagaki noted that levee accreditation status can complicate risk calculations. He added that a graphic of a map could include the ratings as lines, colors, or numbers. Future Conditions Subcommittee Mr. LaVoi led the Future Conditions Subcommittee breakout session. He commented that Dr. Honeycutt will make minor edits to the document and distribute it to the subcommittee members no later than August 4, 2017. He scheduled a subcommittee meeting to review the changes on August 8, 2017, for which he also asked the team to think about a chapter title and graphics, if needed. Additionally, the subcommittee decided to discuss revisions through email to ensure version control. Dr. Honeycutt suggested the title be “Assessing User Needs for Future Conditions Using Products and Services.” Dr. Honeycutt asked, if FEMA identifies resources and moves forward with the recommendations, what is the best way for TMAC to engage with FEMA in support of the first implementation action about reaching out to the broader community for input. She requested additional information about the formality of these meetings and the parameters around how to engage in the process. Mr. Rodriguez said he would get back to the subcommittee with an answer after discussing with FEMA experts. Dr. Honeycutt outlined two potential phases for collecting input: (1) obtain input from the higher-level authorities; and (2) engagement for assessment and design. Next Steps Mr. Dorman suggested that the subcommittees work on graphics for their respective sections. Adjournment Mr. Dorman thanked the presenters, TMAC members, and support staff for their contributions. Mr. Crowell thanked members for their participation and adjourned the meeting. Action Items

• The Residual Risk Subcommittee will investigate other communities where residual risk

communications have been implemented.

• The subcommittees will revise their respective narratives per discussions during the July TMAC

meeting. The narratives should be revised by mid-August so that TMAC members have the

opportunity to review the language prior to the September TMAC meeting.

20

• Mr. Sparrow will reorganize the text and provide it to the subcommittee by July 31, 2017.

• Mr. Stuckey, Dr. Kunreuther, and Mr. Murphy will develop a graphic regarding the calculation of

risk zone.

• Mr. Rodriguez will provide the contact information of someone from the Association of Realtors to discuss their feedback on the risk score with the subcommittee.

• Mr. Sparrow will contact the National Association of Realtors (NAR) to obtain feedback on the risk score.

• Ms. Carlin will help develop graphics for the floodplain management section.

• Mr. Bellomo will research additional language to add to the narrative regarding residual risk

behind dams and levees.

• Mr. Bellomo will speak with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

regarding residual risk due to Sea Level Rise (SLR).

• Ms. Carr will explore options for a color-coding system and research the number of levels

recommended; she will review research that has been done for earthquake risk.

• Ms. Jiwani requested that Residual Risk Subcommittee members provide comments to the

narrative by mid-August.

• Ms. Blyler will research other countries’ approaches to residual risk.

• Dr. Honeycutt will make minor edits to the document and distribute to the Future Conditions

subcommittee members no later than August 4, 2017.

• Mr. Rodriguez will get back to the Future Conditions subcommittee regarding next steps for

seeking community input.

Certification I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the foregoing minutes are accurate and complete.

John Dorman TMAC Chair